Check out the photo that Notre Dame chose to highlight on its Facebook page to "honor" former Notre Dame president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh on his birthday:
Highlighting perhaps the most prominent pro-abortion politician on Capitol Hill. Could you imagine Notre Dame posting a picture of Fr. Hesburgh with a segregationist? For that matter, could you imagine Fr. Hesburgh appearing at an event - even one in his own honor - if a prominent segregationist were in attendance?
The thing is that Notre Dame had plenty of other photos to choose from (see here), and decided to use this one.
Vice-President Joe Biden has put his foot in his mouth again, this
time with regard to the controversy over his leading the American
delegation to attend the installation of Pope Francis as the new Pope.
Never mind that Vice President Joe Biden has been rebuked by his own
bishop over his pro-abortion views, President Barack Obama chose him to
lead the delegation. That decision prompted an outcry from Catholics and
pro-life non-Catholics alike because of Biden’s longstanding
pro-abortion record. Some pro-life advocates have called for Biden to be
prohibited from receiving communion at any ceremony for Pope Francis. Now,
Biden has said he plans to attend the celebratory Mass. He confirmed he
will be attending a reception tonight with the presidential delegation
to the inaugural mass with American officials based in Rome. Biden says
he has to attend “or I’ll lose my soul.”
Biden’s comment came as he met at the Villa Aurelia with Serbian
President Tomislav Nikolic, according to reporters on the scene.
“We invited the American cardinals to a reception,” Biden told
Nikolic. “So unless I’m prepared to join the Eastern Orthodox Church, as
a Roman Catholic, I’d better show up or I’ll lose my soul.”
[...]
In the interview
with the Delaware News Journal, Biden continued to misrepresent the
position of the Catholic Church on abortion in a way that has gotten him
in trouble.
“But throughout the church’s history, we’ve argued between whether or
not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong.
Catholics have this notion, it’s almost a gradation,” Biden claimed.
Not so, said Rev. W. Francis Malooly, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington.
He wrote in a letter to the editor that Biden “presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion.”
“This is simply incorrect,” he said then of Biden’s interpretation.
“The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is
a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human
life.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy concerned that so many charged issues are shifting to US Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is concerned that the U.S. Supreme
Court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues
such as gay marriage, health care and immigration. The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major
policies in a democracy should not depend “on what nine unelected people
from a narrow legal background have to say.” [ED.: Channeling our colleague Justice Scalia, are we?]
Rather, he said, it is important for political leaders to show the world that democracy works through compromise.[ED.: Which is EXACTLY what overturning Roe v. Wade 21 years ago would have allowed.]
(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
My Comments:
Like Ed Morrissey, I'm wondering if it's time for pro-lifers to throw caution to the wind and start doing all across the country what Arkansas has recently done by placing strict time limits on abortion. Heck, go all the way and start enacting some outright bans. It's time for the federal courts to catch up with science anyway.
Let's press the Supreme Court to once again determine whether Roe v. Wade will continue to be the law of the land thereby foreclosing any opportunity for compromise solutions to limiting or even ending abortion. If the above is any indication, perhaps Anthony Kennedy has begun to rethink his "switch in time that saved none ... and killed many" in the Casey decision. I know if I were in his position as a Catholic jurist, I certainly wouldn't want the blood of so many innocents on my hands as I faced the twilight years of my judicial career, not to mention the twilight of my life as I contemplated meeting my Maker.
And, so, we fast-forward several months to today, and we find Kmiec quoted in the pages of The Daily Beast clarifying for us, in no uncertain terms, that he is firmly in the camp of the ObamaCaths - nay, the DemoCaths - for whom Catholic teaching is generally an afterthought in relation to the overall Democrat agenda, except insofar as said teaching can be twisted to push said agenda.
One of the most contentious ObamaCon arguments was offered by Douglas Kmiec, also a veteran of Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel and a law professor at conservative Pepperdine University. Kmiec, who served as ambassador to Malta during the first two years of the Obama administration, tried to square his Obama endorsement with his devout Catholic beliefs and remains an unrepentant ObamaCon, even as Catholic leaders have proclaimed the president’s “war on religion.”
“I am strongly in the president’s camp, even as his opposition has been doing its darnedest to overstate a few concerns about the usual subjects,”[ED.: And what would those "concerns about the usual subjects" be, Dougie? Abortion? You mean to tell me that we shouldn't have concerns about the fact that Obama is the best friend the pro-abortion crowd ever had in the White House? And that we are "overstating" those concerns? Must I really list out all of the things he's done to promote abortion during his term, including nearly shutting down the government and putting our bond rating at risk just to maintain Planned Parenthood's place at the government trough? Just look at the festival celebration of all things abortion going on down in Charlotte right now. Yeah, Doug, we're "overstating" the concerns about "the usual subjects"] Kmiec wrote in an email. “Having served in Europe for the president, I know the very positive effect he has had on international relationships. His patience, discernment, and intelligence are much admired. Domestically, the president was handed the worst possible economic hand, and largely, though of course not perfectly, he has met the economic challenge[ED.: Really? How? I want specifics.] … This is supposed to be Mr. Romney’s area of strength, but so far, his ideas are either indecipherable or a rather lame trickle-down do-over.”[ED.: Hey, Doug, he had the same economic views 4 years ago. You remember? Back when YOU WERE A BIG ROMNEY BACKER? And, interestingly, "trickle-down" economics was how leftists used to deride the economic agenda of your former boss, Ronald Reagan. You remember, don't you, the economic agenda that led to a 20-year period of economic growth? Are you also going to renounce the Reagan legacy? So,in addition to abandoning conservative social principles (or at least putting them on the back burner), you're also abandoning conservative economic principles. Not really "conservative" then.]
“Yes, he could have handled the HHS contraceptive issue in a more accommodating and sensitive way to the formal teaching of my church, [ED.: He could have "handled the ... issue in a more accomodating and sensitive way"? Nice of you to thow us that bone, Dougie, even if it is more of an afterthought and not in strong enough language condemning the serious threat to religious freedom, especially considering that the Bishops have made this issue one of the utmost importance. But something about the way you couch your language leaves me wondering if you're not creating wiggle room for a "but" somewhere in there. When you say "the formal teaching of my church", I'm getting a sense of "This is really the Bishops' thing; individual Catholics differ on this stuff, and, certainly we don't believe that we can impose the teachings of "my faith" on others via public policy. But Obama could have been more sensitive to the Bishops who really do take this stuff seriously."] and he was again given some very poor advice on the scope of religious exemption[ED.: I love it. It's always someone else's fault - can't blame poor Barack for anything. "He was given bad advice." B.S.!!! Obama was well aware of the Church's position, especially after having it clarified for him by Cardinal Dolan, PRIOR to promulgating the HHS Mandate. And certainly, by the time it was issued and the subsequent firestorm over it had taken place, he was aware that a greater accomodation would be necessary to protect religious liberty. But what did he do? He retrenched. He doubled down on evil. He decided that he'd rather violate the 1st Amendment and religious freedom than do something to anger the core constituency of the Democrat Party - the sex-without-consequences crowd. And guess what? By sticking with Obama, you've sided with that crowd, too, rather than with the religious liberty interests of your Church and the nation as a whole as expressed in the Constitution.] that should have been provided an institution like his honorary alma mater, Notre Dame,” [ED.: Yeah, Obama the Domer. Right up there with Knute Rockne. Why, that makes him practically "Catholic" from an American point of view, so why not just make him the Pope of the U.S.A., deciding matters of religious doctrine for our Church? After all, he's more in tune with the socio-political sentiments of the laity than are those stodgy old all-male Bishops.] Kmiec added. “Obviously, there is much to do in terms of tax reform and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but because that is so that is another basis for a second term.”
(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
Look, Kmiec's continued support for Obama all comes down to one thing: P-R-I-D-E. Kmiec has become FAR too invested in Obama to abandon him now. Kmiec sacrificed friends, standing, and reputation in Catholic conservative circles in order to back The One in 2008, and he has stuck with him despite betrayal and abandonment because he has no where else to go. He could come to his senses and come back to the Catholic and conservative principles he's spent the last 4-and-a-half years betraying, and the Catholic conservative crowd would no doubt welcome him back. But he'd never be fully trusted again. His standing would be diminished, and he would be humbled, having to admit that he had made a mistake.
But, like most turncoats, Kmiec isn't altogether trusted by the lefty Catholics either. I mean, he still talks about abortion and marriage (although he gives them far less prominence than he once did, and makes them more of an afterthought - just a token mention to indicate that he's still in any way authentically "Catholic"), as if those things really matter when the REAL work of promoting the Democrat agenda ... errr ... "social justice" ... is where most of those folks are. But that's the bed Kmiec has made for himself, so, he continues to lay down with Obama in it.
The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:
Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion. Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”
[...]
But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.
Mitt Romney has said he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. As for the fate of abortion rights, “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with CBS News this week. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts." Jane Romney said she believes “life is sacred” and suggested those seeking abortion should be required to undergo counseling. But she also said that abortion should “absolutely” be safe and legal. “Every woman needs to be left to make her own choice,” she said. A ban on abortion is “never going to happen” under a Romney administration, Jane Romney said. “Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back."
[...]
With the way Romney has backed off in the last few days from the pro-life stance he pretended to hold in order to win the GOP primary, does anyone REALLY doubt that Romney's sister is entirely correct in her assessment of him? She's right about Romney. And what's more, we all KNOW that she's right about him.
I have been saying for years that Romney is a fraud on the pro-life issue, trying to be all things to all people. But when it comes time to fight for anti-Roe judges, or for defunding Planned Parenthood, or for any other controversial right-to-life initiative, does anyone really believe that Romney will go to the mat in the same way the Dems are willing to fight to the death for abortion? Of course not. It is my heartfelt belief that pro-lifers will come to rue the day they ever supported Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency.
And, yet, the pro-life movement continues to make preposterous claims on Romney's behalf. Just stop. It is one thing to say that Obama is just so much worse that supporting Romney is a necessary evil. But pro-lifers just need to stop claiming that there is otherwise a pro-life argument in Romney's favor. There's just not. And, if he's elected, pro-lifers will eventually ask themselves "What were we thinking in supporting this guy?"
... “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said...
This witch needs to be excommunicated. Like, over a decade ago.
MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.
“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”
Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.”[ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]
... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.
Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.
Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.
Virgil Goode... the ONLY 100% Pro-Life 2012 Presidential Candidate running on the ticket of the only 100% Pro-Life (anti-abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS) political party in the country..
(With all due respect to Ron Paul, who is also pro-life and still running in the GOP race, but is highly unlikely to win that party's nomination.)
Congressman Destroys Sebelius on HHS Mandate and "Appropriate Balance" for Religious Liberty
Gowdy has provided not only a roadmap for whoever argues the case before the Supreme Court, but elicited about the best piece of evidence one could possibly ask for showing that the HHS didn't do its due diligence in considering the appropriate balancing of religious liberty interests.
The HHS mandate is pretty much doomed once it gets to the Supreme Court. When it comes to "striking the appropriate balance" between the fundamental right to religious liberty and some purported government regulatory interest, as Justice Roberts wrote recently in the Hosanna-Tabor case, "the First Amendment has struck the balance for us ."
By the way, I just found out that Congressman Gowdy is a Baylor graduate. Couple that with RG3 being the #2 pick in the NFL draft, and it's YET ANOTHER big day for Baylor.
Sic 'Em Bears !!!
UPDATE
You know what the best part about this entire exchange is? That the words "contraception" and "women's health" NEVER ONCE came up. And that's because this issue isn't about those things - it's about whether the government is permitted to burden religious liberty by demanding activity that violates the fundamental tenets of that religion.
What Congressman Gowdy has done here is to focus on the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL issues at stake, and whether Sebelius and the HHS gave due consideration (or any consideration at all) to what the LAW requires in order to burden a fundamental right like religious liberty. And Sebelius basically conceded that she and the HHS did not. Great work, Congressman!
Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President
Obamney/Robama in their own words:
There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.
Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.
Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.
Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.
Between this despicable "joke" from Romney supporter Scott Brown, and the comments today from Romney supporter John McCain about the GOP needing to "move on" from the debate over the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate, it is clear that the Romney campaign is sending the message that the Catholic Church is on its own should Romney win the nomination.
If Romney hadn't already disqualified himself from getting your vote, then this ought to do the trick. Please join me in vowing to NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney.
“I think we have to fix that,” the Arizona Republican said when asked by David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the idea of a Republican “war on women.” “I think there is a perception out there because of the way this whole contraception issue played out – we need to get off of that issue in my view. I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear — and get back onto what the American people really care about: jobs and the economy.”
This is what RINOs do. They accept the Dem talking points about the issues. So, instead of framing this as a First Amendment Free Exercise issue in which the Catholic Church has a vital religious freedom stake, the previous GOP nominee for president uses the verbiage of the left in defining this as a "woman's right to choose" issue, even if her choice is on the dime of the Catholic Church.
And the previous GOP nominee is a big supporter of the current RINO the GOP establishment is busy trying to shove down our throats. And don't think for one minute that Dullard Flip Rino doesn't share McLoser's sentiments and would sell the Church and the First Amendment down the river in a heartbeat if they think it will mean making social issues irrelevant during this election.
... Dionne warns the bishops that, if they do not back off from their strong defense of religious freedom and find some way to reach agreement with an administration he insists is trying to accommodate their concerns, they risk becoming a church that no longer stands for both life and social justice. Worse, they risk becoming “the Tea Party at prayer.” ...
... and then concluded:
One of the most maddening aspects of this otherwise bracing debate has been the refusal of those who support either the HHS mandate or the bogus administration accommodation to debate honestly, in terms of the facts, and fairly, in terms of the rhetoric. This leads one to the suspicion that the administration’s defenders know that they have a losing case. The administration will likely continue its intransigence, for it cannot meet the bishops’ full concerns without enraging some of its (most well-heeled) allies. There is no remedy in Congress, thanks to Democratic control of the Senate, and the enthrallment of the Democratic party to those who would make Sandra Fluke a 21st century Joan of Arc. But the bishops have a winning case in the courts, on both First Amendment grounds and because of the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indeed, serious constitutional scholars believe that any test of the HHS mandate in the federal courts will result in a victory for the bishops of the magnitude of the Hosanna-Tabor decision in January, where the administration lost 9–0.
The shrewder defenders of the administration know this. That is why they and their allies in the Catholic Lite Brigade, including the Lite Brigade’s journalistic regiment, are trying to roll the bishops now, before the courts get to work. Having failed even to engage the substantive arguments, they are now resorting to intimidation tactics — “You’ll seem partisan! You’ll look like the Tea Party!” — in order to soften up the ground for another “accommodation.”
All of which, in truth, is as insulting to the bishops as the intellectual contempt the administration showed in its February 10 “accommodation.” But that is the sorry state to which the administration and its Catholic apologists have come.
... The March 14 statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “United for Religious Freedom,” does not contain the kind of rhetorical flourishes that reached a dramatic coda in the Poles’ ringing “Non Possumus!” Still, the U.S. bishops have drawn an unmistakably clear line in the sand.
Resisting pressures from both within and without the Church to retreat from their hitherto firm and unified opposition to the administration’s HHS mandate and its bogus “accommodation” of religious concerns, the Administrative Committee — which includes bishops from across the spectrum of Catholic opinion and which does the conference’s most urgent business between the semi-annual meetings of the entire episcopate — strongly reaffirmed statements by the conference president, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, and by individual bishops, that both the mandate and the “accommodation” are unacceptable. Moreover, the statement affirms, against charges of exaggeration, that present administration policy represents a threat to religious freedom of “unprecedented magnitude” that must be “rejected.” And as for those who have long sought to play divide-and-conquer in this affair — from government officials to journalists to advocates of Catholic Lite — they, too, are sent an unmistakable signal in the March 14 statement: “We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.”
In a deft response to the spin and distortion that have characterized this debate for two months, “United for Religious Freedom” usefully clarifies just what the argument is not:
This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive. . . . This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the bishops’ somehow ‘banning contraception,’ when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is, instead, about the federal government forcing the Church . . . to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.
The Administrative Committee’s statement then crisply defines what the HHS mandate involves.
It involves an “unwarranted” and “extremely narrow” definition of who is a “religious employer “ — a definition that “creates and enforces a new distinction” between Catholic houses of worship, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Church’s charitable activities and its educational efforts. According to the administration’s regulatory scheme, the latter will become “second class” citizens, in a dramatic break with both Catholic tradition and federal law...
It involves an attempt by the government to compel Catholic institutions that serve those of many faiths and no faith to violate Catholic teachings within the Church’s own institutions, which is both an intrinsic injustice and a gross intrusion of state power into the Church’s evangelical mission.
[...]
Thus those who expected the bishops to try and find some 50-yard line of agreement with the administration, a middle ground on which the Church’s institutions would be protected while individual Catholic employers would be left to the tender mercies of HHS, were proven exactly wrong: The bishops intend to defend religious freedom in full, and that defense will be all-in.
[...]
There will be no compromise here, for there can be no compromise of first principles. Those who understand that will gather their energies and continue to defend both Catholic and American tradition.
Jim Heath, a reporter for ONN-TV in Ohio, just Tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable.
I just got off the phone with Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if he’s for the “Blunt-Rubio” amendment, and defines it. Romney replies:
“I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”
That’s pretty remarkable. If Romney knew what he was saying, the Senate GOP caucus, which is set to vote on this amendment tomorrow, may feel as if Romney has pulled the rug out from underneath them. And this has become an important issue for conservatives. So it’ll be interesting to see how the base reacts to this, particularly since the GOP primary is anything but over and Rick Santorum — who’s perceived as a more reliable social conservative — is likely to use this to attack Romney, who will be under continued pressure to connect with social and religious conservatives.
Perhaps Romney now feels confident enough in victory in the GOP primary that he’s willing to risk some ire from the base in order to begin his pivot to general election mode in advance of winning the nomination.
“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing,” a spokesman told TPM. “Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”
You can see that all the RINOs [LIARS!] are trying to spin this by explaining that Mitt was confused about which bill they were talking about. Bull!!! DO NOT let the post-interview spin fool you. Romney's initial reaction is what he REALLY believes, and the spin is the Romney campaign scrambling to clean up another one of his messes. Here's how you can tell:
Notice how easily Mitt adopts the language of the left in describing the bill. Notice how he uses this opportunity to get to the left of Santorum and try to paint Santorum as some sort of "bedroom police" - again utilizing the rhetoric of the left.
And then recall how comfortable Mitt was in getting to Rick Perry's left on Social Security and adopting the language of the Democrats in essentially arguing that Perry was going to force Grandma to eat dogfood, or worse, was going to push Grandma off a cliff. Romney seemed like a natural in making those arguments, just as he seems like a natural in his arguments against the Blunt bill and criticizing Santorum's support of it.
Now, contrast those two instances of Romney feeling comfortable in his own skin with those many, many, many times during his campaign in which Romney seemed ill-at-ease and downright uncomfortable trying to sound like a "severe conservative" in his attempts to appeal to grassroots conservatives (i.e. the base of the GOP).
Why is that? I'll tell you why: Because, as Romney has said on multiple occasions, he can't be who he is not, and can only be who he is. Well, THIS is who he is. The Romney in that video - selling out Congressional Republicans trying to do the heavy lifting of overturning the HHS mandate - is who Romney is. Should he win the nomination, we will have an entire campaign season of Romney being who he is to the chagrin of conservatives. And in the unlikely event he were to defeat Obama, we would have an entire 4 years of Romney being who he is and the Republicans in Congress going along with him, again much to the chagrin of conservatives. And in 4 years, he'd be running for re-election, being who he really is, again much to the chagrin of conservatives.
DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN. Not in the primary, and not in the general election. Because I believe in my heart of hearts that the Romney in the video above, and the Romney who demagogued Rick Perry on Social Security, is just the tip of the iceberg of who Romney REALLY is, I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for him.
@ByronYork I thought Romney skipped past the question, to seize a chance to stick it to Santorum on contraception. Not a considered answer.
It may not have been "considered" in the sense that Romney let his mask slip, but make no mistake: the answer Romney gave reveals the TRUE core of Mitt Romney. Romney's core impulse is to run to the left of his opponent - that's his comfort zone. Heck, he even ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for crying outloud. If you want to get Romney off his game, force him to have to run to the right; but he's on his turf when it comes to taking the discussion leftward.
Verona, PA – Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed legislation that would prevent the government from forcing religious institutions to provide services against their faith doctrine. Today, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would oppose it. When Mitt Romney had the chance, he forced Massachusetts Catholic hospitals to go against their private beliefs and provide morning after abortion pills to patients. All the candidates are entitled to make misstatements here and there – but this is a much deeper issue.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “As Governor, Mitt Romney has a clear record of taking away the freedom of religion. We all know Romney’s liberal record on this, so when he’s asked a question about a bill that would protect our religious freedom – and Romney’s gut reaction is to say he’d oppose it – we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised.”
“On the other hand, Rick Santorum was asked the same question, but he wasn’t confused because Rick Santorum has consistently supported religious freedoms.”
For those who haven’t been paying attention, Virginia’s legislature has been going after the abortion industry root and branch. Last year they passed a law requiring aborttoirs to be regulated as if they did what they do: perform a surgical procedure which can be life threatening. This year a bill is being finalized that requires a woman seeking an abortion to see ultrasound pictures of the baby. Somehow this bill, which does not require any medical procedure the woman was not going to receive in the first place, has the pro-abortion lobby in a tizzy. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has predictably styled this as rape.
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.
Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.
[...]
There is only one explanation that fits all the facts. McDonnell wants to be Mitt Romney’s choice for vice president should Romney almost certainly win the GOP nomination. The ultrasound bill is causing too much controversy and probably has Romney’s handlers wearing brown trousers at the thought of having to actually take a pro-life position in a general election campaign. McDonnell takes to opportunity to look moderate and abandons ship...
My Comments: I already knew Dullard Flip Rino was a pro-abort squish, so his discomfort with the recently-passed Virginia pro-life law comes as no surprise to me. But for an allegedly "pro-life Catholic" like Bob McDonnell to suddenly go wobbly and hint opposition to signing the pro-life law just to appease Romney's handlers? May he rot.
When Romney does finally go down to an inglorious defeat (and he will, be it either in the primaries (hopefully, to Santorum) or in the general election), I hope like hell he takes people like Bob McDonnell down with him.
McDonnell's egregious sell-out of the pro-life cause (much worse than Santorum's sell-out of pro-lifers by endorsing Specter) for the sake of raw political ambition and a potential spot on a Romney ticket makes that outcome inevitable. May he fall far and fall hard.
I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia's informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.
Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill's stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.
Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.
For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill...
You can read the snivelling rest if you'd like, but it's the weasel words of a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward, so take it for what it's worth.
UPDATE #2 And for those of you keeping score at home, rack up another huge victory for Planned Parenthood.
Between (1) electing the most pro-abortion President in history, (2) passing Obamacare, (3) successfully rallying the Democrats to hold out and defeat the Stupak Amendment thereto, (4) having the President take the government to the brink of shutdown rather than deprive Planned Parenthood of one penny of taxpayer money in the federal budget, (5) getting the opportunity to put the screws to their arch-enemy the Catholic Church by being invited to help write the HHS mandate requiring the Church to violate its teachings by covering contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization, (6) cowing Susan G. Komen back into the Planned Parenthood fold via a campaign of intimidation, and now (7) cowing an allegedly pro-life Catholic governor who previously had strong social conservative bona fides into backing down on signing one of the more pro-life pieces of legislation to have passed in a long time, Planned Parenthood is on quite an impressive role.
It would be difficult to argue that any private organization in the country comes close to matching the power and clout of Planned Parenthood. They certainly seem to always get their way.
And the transformation to Establishment-RINO-Fiscal-Conservative-Social-Moderate (and don't bother me with all those divisive social issues) is complete.
Jerk.
UPDATE #4 Posting this update just because I want to use this word, and didn't think of it when writing any of my previous descriptions of McDonnell:
The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List plans to endorse Rick Santorum for president.
The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It's the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.
Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group's board, says none of the other candidates has the "record of consistent leadership" Santorum has shown on abortion.
Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.
The group plans to organize activists, particularly in Michigan, before the state's Feb. 28 primary.
I wonder if any of the so-called "pro-life" activists and "pro-life" organizations (i.e. Republican first, pro-life second) who endorsed Dullard Flip Rino early on are now having second thoughts.
A convert to the Catholic Church who became Catholic because of a belief in and devotion to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. * A graduate of Baylor University and the University of Virginia School of Law. * Former Mayor of the Town of Columbia, Virginia. * Married with four children: two boys and two girls. * Primary interests include the Catholic Church, family, Early American History, and law/politics * Primary purpose of this blog is fostering enlightened discussion about the roles played by the institutions of religion, family, and state in our daily lives. * Under the protection of St. Thomas More, martyr, and patron of lawyers, judges, civil servants, politicians, statesmen, and large families (not to mention troubled marriages).
O Glorious St. Thomas More, Patron of Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, your life of prayer and penance and your zeal for justice, integrity and firm principle in public and family life led you to the path of martyrdom and sainthood. Intercede for our Statesmen, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers, that they may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life - the foundation of all other human rights. We ask this through Christ our Lord. AMEN.
Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be able in argument, accurate in analysis, keen in study, correct in conclusion, loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, trustworthy with confidences, courageous in court. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul.
Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage, cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in pain -- their good servant, and God's first. AMEN.
Dear Scholar and Martyr, it was not the King of England but you who were the true Defender of the Faith. Like Christ unjustly condemned, neither promises nor threats could make you accept a civil ruler as head of the Christian Church.
Perfect in your honesty and love of truth, grant that lawyers and judges may imitate you and achieve true justice for all people. AMEN.
"Give me the Grace Good Lord, to set the world at naught; to set my mind fast upon Thee and not to hang upon the blast of men's mouths. To be content to be solitary. Not to long for worldly company but utterly to cast off the world and rid my mind of the business thereof."
"The ordinary acts we practice every day at home are of more importance to the soul than their simplicity might suggest."
*****
"What does it avail to know that there is a God, which you not only believe by Faith, but also know by Reason: what does it avail that you know Him if you think little of Him?"
*****
"The things that we pray for, good Lord, give us grace to labour for."
Give me, good Lord, a full faith and a fervent charity, a love of you, good Lord, incomparable above the love of myself; and that I love nothing to your displeasure but everything in an order to you.
Take from me, good Lord, this lukewarm fashion, or rather cold manner of meditation and this dullness in praying to you. And give me warmth, delight and life in thinking about you.
And give me your grace to long for your holy sacraments and specially to rejoice in the presence of your blessed body, sweet Saviour Christ, in the holy sacrament of the altar, and duly to thank you for your gracious coming. AMEN.
"It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life... In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life" (Centesimus Annus, #39).
.jpg)
